Resources
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
By Day 7
See Week 4 Assignment section for details and instructions.
SUBMISSION INFORMATION
Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area.
- To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as WK5Assgn+last name+first initial.
- Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.
- Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.
Rubric
NURS_4210_Week5_Assignment_Rubric
| Criteria | Ratings | Pts | |
|---|---|---|---|
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRequired Content: Described a potential local natural or man-made disaster. | 20 to >17.0 ptsExcellentProvided a fully developed description of a local natural or man-made disaster with insightful analysis of concepts and related issues.17 to >15.0 ptsProficientProvided a developed description of a local natural or man-made disaster with reasonable analysis of concepts and related issues.15 to >13.0 ptsBasicProvided a minimally developed description of a local natural or man-made disaster with limited analysis of concepts and related issues.13 to >0 ptsNeeds ImprovementProvided an under-developed description of a local natural or man-made disaster with little or no analysis of concepts and related issues. | 20 pts | |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRequired Content: Formulated system level responses to the disaster including nursing role with information from a local expert or evaluation of the local website. | 30 to >26.0 ptsExcellentProvided a fully developed description of systems level responses including the nursing role and information from experts or a local website with insightful analysis of concepts and related issues.26 to >23.0 ptsProficientProvided a developed description of systems level responses including the nursing role and information from a local expert or local website with reasonable analysis of concepts and related issues.23 to >20.0 ptsBasicProvided a minimally-developed description of systems level responses including the nursing role and information from a local expert or website with limited analysis of concepts and related issues.20 to >0 ptsNeeds ImprovementProvided an under-developed description of systems level responses including the nursing role and information from a local expert or website with little or no analysis of concepts and related issues. | 30 pts | |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRequired Content: Identified disaster plans available on the Internet or through a health department contact and identified literature to aid in evaluating disaster plans. | 30 to >26.0 ptsExcellentProvided a fully developed description of disaster plans and evaluation literature with insightful analysis of concepts and related issues.26 to >23.0 ptsProficientProvided a developed description of disaster plans and evaluation literature with reasonable analysis of concepts and related issues.23 to >20.0 ptsBasicProvided a minimally developed description of disaster plans and evaluation literature with limited analysis of concepts and related issues.20 to >0 ptsNeeds ImprovementProvided an under-developed description of disaster plans and evaluation literature with little or no analysis of concepts and related issues. | 30 pts | |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRequired Content: Offered conclusions about the community’s preparedness plan. | 20 to >17.0 ptsExcellentProvided a fully developed conclusions about the community’s preparedness plan with insightful analysis of concepts and related issues.17 to >15.0 ptsProficientProvided a developed conclusions about the community’s preparedness plan with reasonable analysis of concepts and related issues.15 to >13.0 ptsBasicProvided a minimally developed conclusions about the community’s preparedness plan with limited analysis of concepts and related issues.13 to >0 ptsNeeds ImprovementProvided an under-developed conclusions about the community’s preparedness plan with little or no analysis of concepts and related issues. | 20 pts | |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProfessional Writing: Clarity, Flow, and Organization | 10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentContent is free from spelling, punctuation, and grammar/syntax errors. Writing demonstrates very well-formed sentence and paragraph structure. Content presented is completely clear, logical, and well-organized.8 to >7.0 ptsProficientContent contains minor spelling, punctuation, and/or grammar/syntax errors. Writing demonstrates appropriate sentence and paragraph structure. Content presented is mostly clear, logical, and well-organized.7 to >6.0 ptsBasicContent contains moderate spelling, punctuation, and/or grammar/syntax errors. Writing demonstrates adequate sentence and paragraph structure and may require some editing. Content presented is adequately clear, logical, and/or organized, but could benefit from additional editing/revision.6 to >0 ptsNeeds ImprovementContent contains significant spelling, punctuation, and/or grammar/syntax errors. Writing does not demonstrate adequate sentence and paragraph structure and requires additional editing/proofreading. Key sections of presented content lack clarity, logical flow, and/or organization. | 10 pts | |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProfessional Writing: Context, Audience, Purpose, and Tone | 10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentContent clearly demonstrates awareness of context, audience, and purpose. Tone is highly professional, scholarly, and free from bias, and style is appropriate for the professional setting/workplace context.8 to >7.0 ptsProficientContent demonstrates satisfactory awareness of context, audience, and purpose. Tone is adequately professional, scholarly, and/or free from bias, and style is consistent with the professional setting/workplace context.7 to >6.0 ptsBasicContent demonstrates basic awareness of context, audience, and purpose. Tone is somewhat professional, scholarly, and/or free from bias, and style is mostly consistent with the professional setting/workplace context.6 to >0 ptsNeeds ImprovementContent minimally or does not demonstrate awareness of context, audience, and/or purpose. Writing is not reflective of professional/scholarly tone and/or is not free of bias. Style is inconsistent with the professional setting/workplace context and reflects the need for additional editing. | 10 pts | |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProfessional Writing: Originality, Source Credibility, and Attribution of Ideas | 10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentContent reflects original thought and writing and proper paraphrasing. Writing demonstrates full adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and references.8 to >7.0 ptsProficientContent adequately reflects original writing and paraphrasing. Writing demonstrates adequate adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and references.7 to >6.0 ptsBasicContent somewhat reflects original writing and paraphrasing. Writing somewhat demonstrates adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and references.6 to >0 ptsNeeds ImprovementContent does not adequately reflect original writing and/or paraphrasing. Writing demonstrates inconsistent adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and reference. | 10 pts | |
| Total Points: 130 | |||
Required Readings
Document: APA Presentation Template (PowerPoint)
Links to an external site.
